I've taught 8th grade for the last 31 years. I became a teacher because I wanted to work with kids, contribute positively to society, make a difference. So should I be expected to make next to nothing because I teach? Like musicians I have little leverage when it comes to contracts. When offered one my options have been take it or leave it. Having an attorney look it over would be a waste of time. While it isn't a perfect comparison it is close enough to point out that power between parties are not equal and doing something at least partly for the love of it isn't an excuse for screwing over someone.

Click to expand...

Supply & demand. Capitalism does not provide any guaranteed salaries for 'infrastructure' jobs. That's why Paul McCartney is worth $600 million and a million teachers combined net worth is 0.

My family has Spotify premium we pay $15 per month to have 5 accounts, a great deal! Now that is with Peter Frampton getting $1,700 for 55 million streams of his song. If we were to double everything and Peter was to get $$3,400 and we would pay $30 a month still an alright deal, but Peter still isn't making what he should on the 55 million streams. If we triple it and Peter gets $5,100 and we pay $45 a month, deal breaker for me, and Peter is still not getting enough money. Hmmmm... They could probably double the artists rates, but that is abut all the system would sustain. Go up higher and you will lose to many streamers.

My family has Spotify premium we pay $15 per month to have 5 accounts, a great deal! Now that is with Peter Frampton getting $1,700 for 55 million streams of his song. If we were to double everything and Peter was to get $$3,400 and we would pay $30 a month still an alright deal, but Peter still isn't making what he should on the 55 million streams. If we triple it and Peter gets $5,100 and we pay $45 a month, deal breaker for me, and Peter is still not getting enough money. Hmmmm... They could probably double the artists rates, but that is abut all the system would sustain. Go up higher and you will lose to many streamers.

Click to expand...

As i pointed out earlier, $10 a month is $120 a year...which is more than most people spent on music in an average year. If you stick "streaming music" as an option on someone's $200 a month cable bill, the record industry winds up making a lot more money.

One, you're 100% wrong about my personal life. My father never graduated the 6th grade and I was on my own at age 17, working full time+. At one point in my life, I found myself homeless. Dead wrong there pal.

More importantly, that is entirely irrelevant. You have committed a logical fallacy of attacking me instead of my argument.

That said, there are PLENTY of law firms that will take on a long fight. Lawyers charge by the hour. They love long fights.

The point is, there are plenty of lawyers that will take on a fight if there is a decent chance of winning a payout. We don't see that happening here, which ought to tell you something about the nature and validity of the contracts.

Click to expand...

Glad you have been financially successful in life. You do come across as having a blind eye to some of the practical realities of individuals navigating the legal system though.

You fail to note one of the main points I made. While a law firm might be willing to take it on, given the artists ages, most are in their 70s, Crosby is 77, a long protracted fight would probably mean they were dead by the time it was settled. Also as you say lawyers charge by the hour, so how much would be left over if they won after legal fees were paid. Of course they might be willing to take the case for a percentage but what is the going rate, 30-40% or more? I'm sure that same law firm is trying to determine how much they would have to spend upfront and what the likelihood would be that their time and expense invested would exceed to a great enough extent that it would be profitable. If not then it could very well be that there is a good chance that they could win the suit but wouldn't take it because it isn't worth it.

As i pointed out earlier, $10 a month is $120 a year...which is more than most people spent on music in an average year. If you stick "streaming music" as an option on someone's $200 a month cable bill, the record industry winds up making a lot more money.

Click to expand...

Industry news: "We found a pool of people willing to spend $120 a year renting music!"
Industry reaction: "More money. More pain. More B.S.!"
Industry lawyers: "We're on it!"
Producers/engineers/songwriters/musicians: "But we're making even less now."
Industry: "Feature, not a bug."

Unfortunately, the standard for photography is that photographers own the copyright in their pictures and license them for use.

The standard in the music business is that record companies own the sound recordings that their artists paid to produce.

Click to expand...

Yes, and David Crosby and Frampton could have owned the full copyright in their music also, if they did not agree to their voluntary recording contract. They wanted and needed the help of the record companies. Without them, they would not have had a successful career and become a famous and wealthy rock star in the first place. Copyright law does not confer special rights to photographers and disfavored rights to musicians.

Yes, and David Crosby and Frampton could have owned the full copyright in their music also, if they did not agree to their voluntary recording contract. They wanted and needed the help of the record companies. Without them, they would not have had a successful career and become a famous and wealthy rock star in the first place. Copyright law does not confer special rights to photographers and disfavored rights to musicians.

Click to expand...

But recording artist contracts should have an end date. Whatever 20-30-50 years ? And then rights go back to the artist unless the label re ups an extended option.

It's a common scenario in Hollywood, music, and sportsball that some top-tier superstars don't necessarily get that things aren't always going to be "this way", and the tiny, incremental downward slips they make economically don't feel like much individually as they are happening. So they end up hawking Pepsi, signing baseballs, or whatever it is that David Crosby does for money. Rants about how they had $40million of this or $100million of that are moot if the money is gone.

Also, I found the litany of Crosby's illnesses ... off topic.

Click to expand...

I think you are confusing where the $40 million comes in. Someone basically said some guy with a net worth of $40 million shouldn't be complaining. That number is based on some celebrity wealth website. We all know how accurate the internet is. He doesn't have that kind of money.

My family has Spotify premium we pay $15 per month to have 5 accounts, a great deal! Now that is with Peter Frampton getting $1,700 for 55 million streams of his song. If we were to double everything and Peter was to get $$3,400 and we would pay $30 a month still an alright deal, but Peter still isn't making what he should on the 55 million streams. If we triple it and Peter gets $5,100 and we pay $45 a month, deal breaker for me, and Peter is still not getting enough money. Hmmmm... They could probably double the artists rates, but that is abut all the system would sustain. Go up higher and you will lose to many streamers.

Click to expand...

If it's such a raw deal, artists should do like King Crimson and do not stream any albums/songs. Only allow digital/physical purchases. Robert Fripp has the courage of his convictions, why doesn't everyone else?

Supply & demand. Capitalism does not provide any guaranteed salaries for 'infrastructure' jobs. That's why Paul McCartney is worth $600 million and a million teachers combined net worth is 0.

Click to expand...

Not really supply and demand. There are a shortage of teachers. It is about priorities. I'm not complaining about being a teacher. It has been a good career. My point is that passion, love, commitment, aren't an excuse not to reasonably compensate someone.

Yes, and David Crosby and Frampton could have owned the full copyright in their music also, if they did not agree to their voluntary recording contract. They wanted and needed the help of the record companies. Without them, they would not have had a successful career

Click to expand...

So they could have decided not to sign the contracts, and they could have not had successful careers...

Boy, this thread is just full of helpful and practical advice for working musicians.

Have we reached 'peak music'? Steven Wilson made a good point a couple of years back in an interview - there is too much music for the listener to even begin with. Where do things go from here? It seems 99% of the revenue is eaten up by the top 100 acts and the other 100,000 people making music in the world make virtually nothing.

If it's such a raw deal, artists should do like King Crimson and do not stream any albums/songs. Only allow digital/physical purchases. Robert Fripp has the courage of his convictions, why doesn't everyone else?

Click to expand...

Robert Fripp doesn't depend on royalties to pay his bills. I believe he makes his money from real estate investments.

So they could have decided not to sign the contracts, and they could have not had successful careers...

Boy, this thread is just full of helpful and practical advice for working musicians.

Click to expand...

Not necessarily. They could have negotiated better or shopped around until they found a record company that would been more flexible. That might not be realistic when a musician is just starting out, but since most recording contracts do expire after a certain number of years (or projects), it could have been on the table when renewal came around if they were a proven, valuable commodity.

Life is tough in the big city. If you can't do everything yourself and you need the financial backing and expertise of other entities to realize your dream of being a rock star, lots of things are not going to go your way. In their defense, record companies take a financial big risk signing any artist.

I am very familiar with copyright law as I work with it in my profession.

I was referring to the length of time a record label should be able to own the license of the artists work until that label and artist should re up or renegotiate terms.

Click to expand...

You know that only a relative handful of artists - the uber-powerful and the lucky - own the copyright in the recording.

You know that the model for nearly a century was: "We paid for the studio. It's ours." for as long as the law allows (or they tire and somebody offers them enough money to transfer the rights. Bowie and Joni Mitchell eventually did this with portions of their recorded output.).

If it's such a raw deal, artists should do like King Crimson and do not stream any albums/songs. Only allow digital/physical purchases. Robert Fripp has the courage of his convictions, why doesn't everyone else?

Click to expand...

I'm not sure artists have that option if they don't have complete ownership of their recordings. There are many situations where you can lose control of some or all of your creative work, especially if you don't have an effective advocate on your side to foresee any curveballs, while the other side has a team of lawyers on payroll looking for every possible way to screw you.

Glad you have been financially successful in life. You do come across as having a blind eye to some of the practical realities of individuals navigating the legal system though.

You fail to note one of the main points I made. While a law firm might be willing to take it on, given the artists ages, most are in their 70s, Crosby is 77, a long protracted fight would probably mean they were dead by the time it was settled. Also as you say lawyers charge by the hour, so how much would be left over if they won after legal fees were paid. Of course they might be willing to take the case for a percentage but what is the going rate, 30-40% or more? I'm sure that same law firm is trying to determine how much they would have to spend upfront and what the likelihood would be that their time and expense invested would exceed to a great enough extent that it would be profitable. If not then it could very well be that there is a good chance that they could win the suit but wouldn't take it because it isn't worth it.

Click to expand...

Once again you've assumed something about my personal life and you're wrong yet again. You should probably stop assuming that which you could not possible know. And again, why would my personal situation have anything to do with my argument? Fallacies all over the place.

Next, I suspect I understand the practical realities of individuals navigating contractual relationships more that most. It is a part of my job that I've been involved in for decades. So, no blind eye, but a more a through understanding.

To your main point...

Of course lawyers will estimate if a likely payout from a lawsuit is worth the effort. Whatever that payout, they typically get 1/3. Whether a lawyer takes up that fight or not has to do with the potential for all possible lawsuits in which they might engage. If the likely return against all these contracts was such that a suit never managed to get wheels, again, that tells you about the validity of the original contract. Lots and lots of lawyers out there, some with potentially bigger cases, even more with lots of smaller ones. Not all lawyers, nor law firms, are created equal or face the same options for income. However, if no lawyers feel there is good chance to win and that the payout would be worth their time, you have yourself a valid contract. Live with the $1700 to which you voluntarily agreed and stop the whining.

As to a claimants age, lawyers sue on behalf of old people and their estates all the time. That has nothing to do with the validity of the contract.